Glass Message Board
Glass Discussion & Research. NO IDENTIFICATION REQUESTS here please. => Malta Glass => Topic started by: chriscooper on May 08, 2013, 10:19:47 AM
-
Over 9" tall weighs 2.5kg quite narrow along the sides just over an inch wide.
Flat on the back cut ice on the front but not polished flat large dimpled swirls showing. Nothing on the base.
Crizzle and lots of large bubbles some amethyst showing, the casing as a green tinge to the glass.
Had suggestions from a cut ice lollipop to a later Dobson piece, though to be fair they have now conceded it is early.
My thoughts a cut ice fish? Michael Harris around 1970 similar to the one on page 33 of the Mark Hill book?
-
It's certainly a "Cut-Ice Lollipop" - just an uncut one. It is not at all unsual for "Cut-Ice lollipops" to be uncut.
It is not a Fish.
Fish vases have the applied wings to the sides;
Lollipops are flat, roundish pieces.
The Cut-Ice Lollipops are a Harris design, not Dobson's.
I don't understand why somebody would have mentioned Dobson to you. ???
Dobson was the business manager, although he had a great input as a designer as well, and also marked "Mdina" on the base of pieces, he did not make glass himself.
Your piece might be from the early (Harris) days, but it would be absolutely impossible to tell for sure.
I think some of these lollipops didn't get the final cutting because of the time and staff constraints and it was deemed more important to get stuff on the shop shelves to keep up with demand than to bother with finishing everything "properly".
Looking at the piece you have, I would personally suspect it was made by Said.
The internal "workings" of the glass are not as "tight" as are Harris pieces, it doesn't seem to have too many lovely bubbles either - and the overall shape doesn't look right to me - but I could be wrong.
I've attached an image of a signed Harris one.
-
Do you then agree then Mark Hill's description A 'Cut ice' fish vase with polished facets circa 1970 is at best misleading or just completely wrong? (page 33)
A very similar vase to this and which I have based my information on.
Chris
-
The book is plain wrong I'm afraid.
Mark is aware of this and it would have been corrected in the second edition - but that has been put on hold indefinintely because of the closure of IoWSG.
These lollipops were made well into the late '70s. I've seen them signed (by Said) and dated up to circa '79.
Again, we're in a situation of 2-D images not being able to depict 3-D sculptures at all well.
-
Lovely Lollipop Chris, I would suspect it was made in 72 or before but without handling to asses the subtleties it can be hard to tell. Usually, later lollies are fatter but as per usuall there will be exceptions.
John
-
The fatness can depend on the height too. I have always tended to think the taller ones are later - perhaps just because my signed one is smaller. The pic of mine doesn't show how different the internal appearance is to my other ones - one of which is signed by Said, '74. I have just assumed that only my MH signed one is actually by him.
-
This one, which is a half inch shorter than Chris's, is signed by MH: https://picasaweb.google.com/Johnmj100/EarlyMdinaGlass#5429986536823925058
This one was taller but much fatter, dated 76 I think: https://picasaweb.google.com/Johnmj100/LaterMdinaGlass#5803176948307163506
Really tricky dating these without one or other of the signatures used being present. Who is likely to have been making them circa 1972 at Mdina - Harris, Said, Boffo perhaps?
John
Thickness may depend to a degree on how much is ground away for the facets too...
-
I don't think I've seen a pre-'73 signed Said anything. Or did somebody post somthing once, dated '72? A seahorsey thing?
I know Said had a really good innate skill for glassmaking, which developed rapidly, but I really don't know if he was able to make such things as early on as '72.
Looking at your signed MH one, John, it's not nearly as "tight" as mine - so perhaps that's not a reliable way of telling either.
This is my Said signed '74 one.
-
It was me that posted the 73 seahorse. Looking at them from an outside point of view lol, as someone who has little knowledge of this glass, my observation is that the bubbles in the two known MH ones seem to appear to be much larger than the Said signed one or Chris's one.
That said, they are all absolutely glorious :)
m
-
Someone pointed out that elsewhere that the earlier ones are not narrow waisted at the bottom.
Which your pictures seem to prove as your 74 one is but the others aren't and Mr Coopers does so if this is a method then his is later.
-
Apparently MH was quite deliberate in his placement of bubbles like that.
The only Harris era pieces I remember that were not signed in the 'conventional' manner were MH signed and had personal messages too. Conventional being either just Mdina in diamond point (for the American market) or fully signed by MH.
John
Narrow at the bottom to distinguish does not work for me...
-
Everything was very haphazard early on - each piece is individual and unique - I really don't think there were any hard and fast rules about shapes. What I am noticing is that Said's ones use big zig-zag shapes inside, he doesn't really know how to produce something truly random; whereas Michael Harris can produce fabulous artistic randomness!
(I can't do "artistic random" either)
Getting back to overall shapes though, I've even got a round Fish. I believe this is a Michael Harris one although it is unmarked.
-
MH's work was much more fluid, at least that is how it looks to me.
-
Yes fluid - or psychadelic. Not zig-zaggy in an attempt to be fluid or psychadelic!
This is an image of an elongated one I have. Unmarked - I believe it is Michael Harris' work.
(sorry for not producing all the images at once - I'm having to track them down, then resize etc.)
-
Thanks for all your help, seems you were right with your initial assessment
Mr Edwards ;D it is a 'lollipop' then and there's me doubting you over the words of an expert, seems there are a quite a few mistakes in the book. Not sure why a second edition as been shelved because the studio as closed I think most people are more interested in the earlier pieces anyway?
John I would love you to handle it to assess it better, despite my poor photographs it is quite fluid with some lovely large 'placed' bubbles nice lines with a long slim neck and narrow body unlike a lot I have seen that look more like a mallet and more akin to something to hit a burglar over the head with.
Sue have you got a scientific background? sorry but I often struggle to follow your logic all too clinical and scientific for my tiny brain :) You tell me it can't be a fish, fish vases have wings then you produce a round one :)
Chris
-
The round one still looks like my fish Chris - it has applied 'wraps' of glass over each side even though it is roundish. Difficult to see in the pics but it kind of looks as though it has a shawl slung over it's shoulders :)
m
-
Now that I do understand :)
Chris
-
I am a scientist, yes. :)
Who is Mr. Edwards? (if he's a film character, I'm completely clueless :-[ )
Sorry the pic. of my round one doesn't show the wrapped bits too well - again the hazard of pics over reality, but the "crossover strap" is visible between them - and the iridesence marks the v-shape on the front out.
It is hard to tell though, particularly with it being brown.
Yes, there are a couple of errors in the book. This wrongly captioned image of a Lollipop, and the mention of there being green glass at Mdina - but we hadn't found out how to distinguish MDG from Mdina at the time the book was written., so I presume the mention of green came from examples of MDG which had been seen, but mistaken for Mdina.
Then there is the image of that piece (the so-called "obelisk"at the bottom of p.52 which has been doing the rounds for years - both the piece and the image) - it's a tricorn bottle which has been ground down, for heaven's sake!
Are you aware of any others?
I don't know why Mark has put the second edition on hold, there's just an announcement on his website.
-
I am Mr Edwards. Chris was responding in kind because I referred to him as Mr Cooper.
I only did that to avoid typing Chris's vase though which doesn't seem right.
And yes Chris it is amazing but I was right all along. :D
-
Wow... I just wanted to say that ALL the pieces in this thread are gorgeous!
Drool, drool.